Pass vs Run, which is more crucial to victory?

[Kleckineau]

Here are some stats I put together that show rushing offense is still where its at despite the so called pass oriented philosophy of todays NFL.

Pass for show and run for dough?

Top 5 rushers this week and how team fared

1. A. Peterson MIN 160 yds W

2. P. Hillis CLE 144 yds L

3. R. Mendenhall PIT 143 yds W

4. C. Johnson TEN 125 yds W

5. M. Turner ATL 114 yds W

Top 5 passers this week and how team fared

1. K. Orton DEN 476 yds L

2. P. Rivers SD 455 yds L

3. E. Manning NYG 386 yds L

4. D. Brees NO 365 yds L

5. C. Henne MIA 363 yds L

(355pm, fixed NYG to show a loss)

[stoicsentry]

Interesting stats. I think people underestimate the run. Yeah you gotta love the long ball, and it helps to be able to come back when you're down by multiple scores.

But running the ball controls the clock, and it gets your defense some much needed rest.

To me, THAT is going to be one of the most interesting things to watch about this team this year. You throw a few of these games out the window, but when Revis and Pace return then you look at how the defense does. You look at how the defense does when you increase your pass attempts by 20% or whatever. I want to see how much clock control and the running game helped the defense last year, if at all.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

Here are some stats I put together that show rushing offense is still where its at despite the so called pass oriented philosophy of todays NFL.

Pass for show and run for dough?

Top 5 rushers this week and how team fared

1. A. Peterson MIN 160 yds W

2. P. Hillis CLE 144 yds L

3. R. Mendenhall PIT 143 yds W

4. C. Johnson TEN 125 yds W

5. M. Turner ATL 114 yds W

Top 5 passers this week and how team fared

1. K. Orton DEN 476 yds L

2. P. Rivers SD 455 yds L

3. E. Manning NYG 386 yds W

4. D. Brees NO 365 yds L

5. C. Henne MIA 363 yds L

No offense, but this is a really inaccurate way to do this kind of analysis. There's tons of variables you aren't taking into account, nor do you have nearly enough of a sample size to make this argument.

[Aten]

There's tons of variables you aren't taking into account

The variables are there, he's just got the causality reversed. Also I'm pretty sure the whole impetus is a butchered Lock, Stock reference.

[Kleckineau]

The variables are there, he's just got the causality reversed. Also I'm pretty sure the whole impetus is a butchered Lock, Stock reference.

If by butchered lock you were referring to a self fulfilling prophecy, I'll give you that one as most analysys by sports stat junkies do have a pre-ordained outcome. However, we can argue reversal of causality until Aten rises from the sarcophagus. Neither position would be proven right or wrong.

[SenorGato]

A good offense should always be able to run the ball.

[Aten]

If by butchered lock you were referring to a self fulfilling prophecy, I'll give you that one as most analysys by sports stat junkies do have a pre-ordained outcome. However, we can argue reversal of causality until Aten rises from the sarcophagus. Neither position would be proven right or wrong.

Akhenaten. Gods don't have sarcophaguses. Anyway, since you can clearly Google, try "football outsiders" + "establishment clause."

[Kleckineau]

Akhenaten. Gods don't have sarcophaguses. Anyway, since you can clearly Google, try "football outsiders" + "establishment clause."

Sorry, didnt mean to pee on your god status. Egyptolgy is interesting but not one of my passions.

Back to the one week sample.

I never said and I dont believe a week or month or a full seasons result is enough data to make a strong case either way. However, I do think it is enough to stick up the talking heads collective asses that continue to chant the "NFL is a pass first league" mantra as if its dogma.

[Aten]

I never said and I dont believe a week or month or a full seasons result is enough data to make a strong case either way. However, I do think it is enough to stick up the talking heads collective asses that continue to chant the "NFL is a pass first league" mantra as if its dogma.

Okay, let's have your research then. What portion of the rushing yards above were amassed after that player's team had a lead? How many of the passing yards came when the quarterback's team was behind?

[Kleckineau]

Okay, let's have your research then. What portion of the rushing yards above were amassed after that player's team had a lead? How many of the passing yards came when the quarterback's team was behind?

Back to original post title. Pass vs run, which is more crucial. Notice the ?

It was a hypothetical. I thought it would be of interest as it flys in the face of current logic ie "The NFL is a pass first league"

I put it out there for the deity's of Jetnation to solve.

Let me know when you have answered your questions.

[CTM]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

[The Troll]

The stats are skewed because when a team is playing catch-up, they are obviously going to pass. How about last week, when Matt Schaub threw for 497 in a W?

Two of the most prolific teams of all-time are the '98 Vikings and the '07 Patriots. Those teams went a combined 31-1 in the regular season and both passed constantly.

"Where it's at" on offense is wherever your strength happens to be. Is Denver a better team if they give Maroney 25 carries? Would the Patriots be better with a bigger dose of Benjarvis? No and no.

It's all well and good if you have Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson. Not many teams have the luxury.

[dbatesman]

Back to original post title. Pass vs run, which is more crucial. Notice the ?

It was a hypothetical. I thought it would be of interest as it flys in the face of current logic ie "The NFL is a pass first league"

I put it out there for the deity's of Jetnation to solve.

Let me know when you have answered your questions.

It's already been solved. He gave you a treasure map complete with boolean operators. Since even that was too complicated, here's the answer: you run when you win, not win when you run.

[The Crusher]

No offense, but this is a really inaccurate way to do this kind of analysis. There's tons of variables you aren't taking into account, nor do you have nearly enough of a sample size to make this argument.

I love JVOR cause he gots brains biitches. LOL

[slats]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

This. Thank you.

Passing is more important by far. A bunch of QB's throwing for a lot of yards and losting doesn't negate that.

Everyone of those QB's, btw, threw picks this week. Three of them throwing a couple.

[The Crusher]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

Man you can sniff out a statistical thread the same why I do gravy.

[Vicious89x]

Man you can sniff out a statistical thread the same why I do gravy.

[The Crusher]

This. Thank you.

Passing is more important by far. A bunch of QB's throwing for a lot of yards and losting doesn't negate that.

Everyone of those QB's, btw, threw picks this week. Three of them throwing a couple.

Dis mus be sum dem damn veryables that bright Asian fella was takin bout.

[sirlancemehlot]

There is no right answer, really. It's totally situational. If you're playing against Peyton Manning--you'd better be able to run. The longer your D is on the field--the worse shape you're in. Running game limits his touches as it eats the clock. If you're playing the Ravens run defense--you'd better be able to pass or you're not going anywhere. An effective running game is obviously of the most benefit as it keeps your offense on the field and their offense on the sideline. But it isn't always necessarily the best way to win a game.

[RutgersJetFan]

Man you can sniff out a statistical thread the same why I do gravy.

Speaking of gravy, we're about 3 weeks away from the Thanksgiving wrap being available at Hansel and Griddle in New Brunswick. You're gonna wanna try that if you're around the area.

This thread is t!ts.

[The Crusher]

Speaking of gravy, we're about 3 weeks away from the Thanksgiving wrap being available at Hansel and Griddle in New Brunswick. You're gonna wanna try that if you're around the area.

This thread is t!ts.

Sounds good. How many turkeys do they fit in a wrap anyhow?

[war ensemble]

No offense, but this is a really inaccurate way to do this kind of analysis. There's tons of variables you aren't taking into account, nor do you have nearly enough of a sample size to make this argument.

Clearly he hasn't taken even an elementary class in statistics.

[Kleckineau]

Speaking of gravy, we're about 3 weeks away from the Thanksgiving wrap being available at Hansel and Griddle in New Brunswick. You're gonna wanna try that if you're around the area.

This thread is t!ts.

I love t!ts!

I love The Hansel and The Griddle !

[Jetsfan80]

There is no right answer, really. It's totally situational. If you're playing against Peyton Manning--you'd better be able to run. The longer your D is on the field--the worse shape you're in. Running game limits his touches as it eats the clock. If you're playing the Ravens run defense--you'd better be able to pass or you're not going anywhere. An effective running game is obviously of the most benefit as it keeps your offense on the field and their offense on the sideline. But it isn't always necessarily the best way to win a game.

Remember this game last year? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092100/2009/REG2/colts@dolphins

Miami controlled the clock against Peyton for more than 45 minutes and lost. Why? Because quick-strike offenses have a wider margin for error. The Dolphins had to put together 12-14 plays to score a TD. The Colts needed 3-6 to get into the end zone that night. If a control-the-clock running team falls behind, its much harder for them to come back than the quick-strike passing team.

[serphnx]

Remember this game last year? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092100/2009/REG2/colts@dolphins

Miami controlled the clock against Peyton for more than 45 minutes and lost. Why? Because quick-strike offenses have a wider margin for error. The Dolphins had to put together 12-14 plays to score a TD. The Colts needed 3-6 to get into the end zone that night. If a control-the-clock running team falls behind, its much harder for them to come back than the quick-strike passing team.

Ultimately you don't win by taking longer to score points, you win by having more points than the other team. I always had to laugh about that implication that somehow taking lots of time off the clock is the primary objective. If it were Chad Pennington would be an easy first ballot HoFer since he always took 10 minutes just to score a freaking field goal.

If the game is tied and you score a TD on one play, what do you care that your defense is tired? Make that opposing offense figure out how to match you. Sure you'd prefer having a great D that just stops them and gives you the ball all the time, but you can enhance that D by handing them huge leads. The Rams back in their first SB run with Warner simply used that strategy to turn a mediocre at best defense into pretty much the top D in the league. They'd score quickly and often on you, and then make you completely one dimensional.

[SenorGato]

There is no right answer, really. It's totally situational. If you're playing against Peyton Manning--you'd better be able to run. The longer your D is on the field--the worse shape you're in. Running game limits his touches as it eats the clock. If you're playing the Ravens run defense--you'd better be able to pass or you're not going anywhere. An effective running game is obviously of the most benefit as it keeps your offense on the field and their offense on the sideline. But it isn't always necessarily the best way to win a game.

+1

The difference between the Saints and Colts last year? The Saints could run the ball.

A truly great offense can pass or run at will.

[Sperm Edwards]

+1

The difference between the Saints and Colts last year? The Saints could run the ball.

A truly great offense can pass or run at will.

What?

The Colts ran the ball better than the Saints in the superbowl by about a 2:1 margin both in total yards and in ypc. Indy even scored a TD running the ball, which NO was unable to do.

The difference in that game was recovering an onside kick and returning an interception for a touchdown plus Stover missing a FG (failing to get the 3 points and then giving NO a shorter field on the ensuing drive). That and a 2-point conversion more than accounted for the entire point differential when they played.

I don't give credit to the Colts for not winning or playing the would-have-won-if-this or -that. They got beaten by New Orleans and that's that. And **** Polian and his horseface QB anyway. But there were reasons for Indy's loss and it wasn't because the Saints were supposedly able to run the ball as opposed to the Colts who supposedly weren't.

[Bruce Banner]

I don't like these debates because I think there is value in contrarianism. If most defenses are set up to stop the pass with small, fast LBers and safeties then its a good time to have a power running game. And it goes the other way too. I remember when teams first started using 3 and 4 WR sets they going against teams that only had 2 good CBs. That didn't last long because people adapted. Even if passing is more successful over all, I would love to be the lone running team in the league and go up against defenses built to stop the other 31 teams.

[Irish Jet]

Passing. Easily.

[Smashmouth]

The Running game is much more crutial to victory. More often than not, high passing numbers mean a team is usually playing from behind.

The running game does alot of things for a QB. It takes the pressure off of him and keeps Defenders from just all out rushing the passer. It helps keep defenses off balance and actully opens up the passing game with play action.

With 3 minutes left in the game and a small lead, it takes a good strong running game to run out the clock and seal the victory. Runing the ball early and often wears out defenses and keeps your defense off the field and fresh for the all important 4th quarter. Yes there are some exceptions to this rule just ask Peyton Manning or Tom Brady BUT thats a small percentage.I'll bet if you also asked those guys if they would appreciate a good solid Running game like the Saints and Drew Brees have they would take that in a heart beat over throwing the ball 35-50 times a game. In the early Tom Brady years the Pats were able to run and control the football and they won SB's what have they won recently with Randy Moss and Wes Welker ? The Passing yards Title ?

Peyton Manning has a big influence over how his offense operates, its no wonder he throws the ball so much. Its also no wonder how many times the Colts get knocked out of the playoffs due to the lack of a running game and not being able to shut the game down late, like the Cowboys of the early 90's did with regularity.

I think a good Running attack and a good passing attack go hand in hand, one helps the other, but its the little things the running game brings that make it the most important part of a good offense.

[DMaynard]

Okay, let's have your research then. What portion of the rushing yards above were amassed after that player's team had a lead? How many of the passing yards came when the quarterback's team was behind?

bingo!

[Smashmouth]

Remember this game last year? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092100/2009/REG2/colts@dolphins

Miami controlled the clock against Peyton for more than 45 minutes and lost. Why? Because quick-strike offenses have a wider margin for error. The Dolphins had to put together 12-14 plays to score a TD. The Colts needed 3-6 to get into the end zone that night. If a control-the-clock running team falls behind, its much harder for them to come back than the quick-strike passing team.

Your talking about a team in Miami that had NO PASSING gama at all its not a fair comparison. Either way Miami had the chance to win in the 4th with basicly a one dimentional offense. When the Ginats beat the bills in the SB they could not stop the Bills offense but they won the game by controling the clock with a deadly ball control offense a few 9 + minute drives ate up an entire half of football, shortened the game and the Giants won. How many all out passing teams ( the run and Shoot era) won a SB ?

[SenorGato]

What?

The Colts ran the ball better than the Saints in the superbowl by about a 2:1 margin both in total yards and in ypc. Indy even scored a TD running the ball, which NO was unable to do.

The difference in that game was recovering an onside kick and returning an interception for a touchdown plus Stover missing a FG (failing to get the 3 points and then giving NO a shorter field on the ensuing drive). That and a 2-point conversion more than accounted for the entire point differential when they played.

I don't give credit to the Colts for not winning or playing the would-have-won-if-this or -that. They got beaten by New Orleans and that's that. And **** Polian and his horseface QB anyway. But there were reasons for Indy's loss and it wasn't because the Saints were supposedly able to run the ball as opposed to the Colts who supposedly weren't.

Lol oops. I made that up to fit my beliefs anyway...

A great offense should be able to run the ball well enough when they have to.

[sirlancemehlot]

Remember this game last year? http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092100/2009/REG2/colts@dolphins

Miami controlled the clock against Peyton for more than 45 minutes and lost. Why? Because quick-strike offenses have a wider margin for error. The Dolphins had to put together 12-14 plays to score a TD. The Colts needed 3-6 to get into the end zone that night. If a control-the-clock running team falls behind, its much harder for them to come back than the quick-strike passing team.

By your standards then--every team should get themselves a Peyton Manning and three awesome recievers. Great Idea--I'm all for it. There is a flaw here though. There is only one Peyton Manning. Only one Drew brees. Just as there is only one Adrian Peterson and one Chris Johnson. The best way to beat the Colts is to keep Manning off the field. Miami did its best to do that. They weren't as good a team as the colts, so they lost. This debate is akin to saying "whats more important--Offense or defense?" or "Is good blocking better than good tackling?". It depends on a teams personnel, opponent, gameplan, strengths and weaknesses, injuries, even the weather. I can come up with successful examples of run-first teams and pass-heavy teams..as well as teams that have been successful doing neither particularly well but have had an excellent defense.

[Smashmouth]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

Your making the comparison between A running back and A QB its not what hes asking. Of course QB's are the most important part of any offense but they dont wear down defenses the running game does. The running game also runs out the clock to preserve the lead late in the 4th.

The real answer is a well balanced offense wins games and wins SB's to go along with a solid defense. One Dimentional teams do not win SB's so no matter how much we argue about whats better than the other thats what it comes down too. The rare exception of teams like the 2000 Ravens crop up once in a while but its very rare you see an all out passing offense with no running game win a SB, just as rare as the Ravens.